Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
FoolThemAll.... we've been over this more times than I can count. I'll distill it here, and....if you sicerely are interested.....you can read the "middle"...the supporting articles, official quotes, and news reporting....detailed in several "definitive posts":
|
Host, my gripe was with the seemingly unsupported "they lied about WMD" claim, and the information you post deals entirely with the false Al Qaeda-Iraq connection, no?
Nevertheless...
These guys are snakes, and a lot of what you posted looks like snakes deliberately deceiving without technically lying. Kinda like Clinton, only it's about issues that are much, much more important.
For a lot of this, 'deception' might be a much better word, even if the connotation isn't quite as harsh.
Quote:
|
FoolThemAll.....and Sticky, for that matter....how can we have a REAL discussion, unless we can all agree that a "reasonable person" would react with outrage and incredulity to the idea that practically everything that Powell told the assembled world body in the Feb. 2003 quotes above, was reduced to this by late 2006:
|
The whole problem is that the most damning fabrications, the ones that are most obviously lies, are only implied in words that can be interpreted various ways. 'Direct', for instance, doesn't necessarily mean 'operational'.
You might have to hold my hand a little more here, host. The most confusing part for me is the timeline. When Colin said those things - particularly the "converging on Baghdad" bit - was the evidence insurmountably slanted against those claims?
Quote:
|
Mr. Bush was talking about "take threats before they fully materialize"......and when the "Zarqawi was there" declaration is exposed as a lie what remains to justify the invasion of iraq aside from illegal aggressive war?
|
Removing a harmful dictator and improving the lot of the Iraqi people, creating a democratic domino effect in the middle east... those are what come to mind right now. I have a lot more sympathy for the former justification, though we've done a terrible job with that theory in practice. And I'm not sure I would've supported the war without WMD or terrorist ties. I'd still find 'removing a dictator' to be a convincing argument *in theory*, but I'd sooner deal thoroughly with Darfur or North Korea. (Though, then comes the argument that Iraq should get higher priority because it's easier to handle than Korea or Iran.)
Bottom line... I could still see good reason for going into Iraq, but very little reason for rushing into it as we did.